Do you think that global warming exists? Explain why you think the answer you do

Yes, because the globe is getting warmer.

Tell you what - go to TheMindRenewedDOTcom and listen to Professor Emeritus Don Easterbrook testify before the Senate on "global warming",(podcast number 39), Dr. Tim Ball, Dr. Richard Lindzen, Mark Marano, the "Male Tree" and rising sea levels - all neat and tidy under one site with short one-hour podcasts. Fascinating talks. Then you can decide for yourself. If you believe it is, then it is but if you share the views of the scientists above, then it's a hoax. Frankly, it 'ain't gettin warmer' where I'm at. Keep in mind that NASA-GIS have just claimed that the data they used to support global warming was false. The head honcho Richard Hansen resigned. It was wrong. The computer models to predict global -warming trends were, in short, 'garbage in/garbage out'. The IPCC is disgraced.

The global temperature is higher than it had been 40 years ago. But it is still colder by 3C than it was 1200 years ago. Data taken from ice core in antarctic and Greenland and Siberia and Arctic. And many more places around the world. BUT, that is over 1200 years not the 100 or so at current predictions where it is expected to rise more.

Global warming is false. In order to "prove" global warming statistics, the current scientists had to omit two hundred years of data which didn't fit into their hypothesis. That clearly shows that they had a result they wanted to fit and were not unbiased. Science is about proving the facts, not what you want to prove.

Global warming is a marketing effort to get people to pay for products the don't need.

To be honest I don't see why there is even a debate on this

Look at the two sides, on one you have pretty much the entire science community, that is pretty easy to confirm by looking at 'any' science site, or any database of published scientific papers.

http://climate.nasa.gov/

Groups with long standing scientific credentials like NASA, NOAA, USGS, CSIRO, BAS or any of the Academies of science of any country that has one.

Then you have the other side, they use blogs and political lobby sites like Heartland and can offer no real science, but a string of changing theories i.e "it's the Sun, It's volcanoes, it's clouds, it's cosmic rays etc. Then there are the string of conspiracies, that have tried blaming (in no particular order) governments, communists, greens, Al Gore, various other billionaires and now even scientists.

kano is a prime example of this scientific illiteracy, he's says look at the "Ordovician"

O.k lets do that, it's almost half a billion years ago, does kano mention most of the Ordovician was actually very warm, does he mention the Sun was about 5% less than it it's today, odd given deniers try to claim the current solar cycle shift of less than 0.1% plays a part in climate, does he mention most of the major landmasses where grouped around the South Pole, allowing the formation of a large ice mass if temps did fall and that evidence shows Co2 did fall towards the end of the Ordovician.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/60...

As for kano's contention of no links between past climate change and Co2 all I can say is, what utter rubbish, while the Sun and volcanoes are certainly linked to ancient climate change in many cases Co2 is also, in fact volcanoes in the long term change Co2, which makes a bit of a joke of denier claims human emitted Co2 can't, when many deniers try to use volcanic changes.

The graph kano uses is a very course scale and deniers have been using it for a while, o.k kano claims he thinks Co2 is not a driver of climate, funny as R. A. Berner (the supposed creator of his graph) thinks it is.

http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archi...

Note the figure on page 2, it shows what R. A. Berner really thinks, note also the actual source for kano's graph "geocraft.com" a site where deniers seem to dig up many graphics that have been altered or simply created from nothing.

In my research I use satellites to track the changing climate. I'm convinced that man-made global warming is real because satellites have directly measured the greenhouse effect is getting stronger due to the carbon dioxide and other heat-absorbing gases we've put in the air. As predicted by physics.

I'm convinced that it's warming because thermometers, satellites, weather balloons, ocean buoys and boreholes all measure Earth heating up. Spring is coming earlier in many locations, the water cycle has got more intense, animals are migrating towards the poles, sea levels are rising, the water vapour in the atmosphere is increasing, glaciers are shrinking, the height of the tropopause is rising (because hotter air expands) and many other measurements show it's happening.

I'm convinced that it's caused by human activity because satellites measure the man-made greenhouse effect getting stronger, because we've done calculations on how Earth reacts to things like changing solar activity and volcanoes, we've seen how climate changed in the past and there are certain 'fingerprints' that show the warming is man-made. For example, if the Sun was heating us up then the entire atmosphere would warm including from the top, because that's where the Sun's heat comes from. If it's man-made greenhouse gases, then the lower atmosphere heats up while the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) cools. We've measured it and the lower atmosphere is warming, and the upper atmosphere is cooling.

This enormous pile of evidence is why 97% of researching climate scientists think that man-made global warming is real, according to a study that looked at the research over over 10,000 of them:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/...

There is much more disagreement among people who aren't climate scientists, however.

There is NO man-made Global Warming according to these guys and they should know.

Top climate scientists say there is no man-made Global Warming.

The Great Global Warming Swindle